Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal

Today Canon released the XC10, a camera that for all practical purposes is equal part a stills and a video camera. It promises to deliver not only both types of media, but an appropriate user experience for either type of shooting. It may be the first true 'convergence' camera.

Convergence. You’ve no doubt heard about it before. Still photography and video are on a collision course. In the future, goes the thinking, a camera will simply be a camera. Whether it shoots video or stills will be irrelevant because, of course, all cameras will simply shoot both. Well, it looks like the future may have arrived.

Updated: We have added additional information to the 'Final Thoughts' section to address some questions from the Comments thread.

The Canon XC10 may be the first true 'convergence' camera.

Getting Here

The photography and video worlds have been on a technological collision course for a number of years, thanks to the fact that they share so many technological underpinnings. These include extremely sensitive, high resolution sensors, powerful and energy efficient processors (largely driven by the mobile industry), and fast and inexpensive data storage solutions.

Historically, however, photographers and videographers* were two different sets of users: they had different areas of specialized expertise, did different types of projects, and dealt with completely different production workflows. Chances are good that if you were a working photographer you probably weren’t a videographer, and vice-versa.

As a result, until the last few years there wasn’t significant pressure to combine photography and videography tools into a single product class built with the intent to function equally well for both purposes. Most still cameras - even those with robust video features - were built around a basic design convention that was never intended to be used for shooting video, and most video cameras were built around a design convention never intended for shooting stills.

But we live in a multimedia era. Every media organization, business, and even individual photographer has multiple distribution channels to satisfy, including web sites, social media, television, and even print. These channels have to be satisfied quickly, and on a budget.

This point was driven home for me at a recent conference where I happened to speak with an editor from a well known media company with a presence across web, print, and TV. “Within a couple of years,” she told me, “the only photographers we will hire will be the ones who can also shoot and edit video for our web sites. We don’t have the budget to hire specialists anymore.”

This isn’t an uncommon scenario, and as a result, we’re seeing a fundamental shift in what it means to be a content producer. And of course, we will need tools that meet these needs.

Milestones

We didn’t get to where we are today without some risk takers, trial and error, and a bit of good luck. One could come up with numerous examples of influential products that have moved the convergence needle in the right direction over the years, but there are a couple of significant highlights worth noting.

The Canon 5D Mark II was the camera that launched a revolution. It wasn’t the first stills camera to include video, and it wasn't even the first video-enabled DSLR, but it changed the expectation of what was possible. Launched by Canon mainly as a stills camera, at release it didn’t even have features that would be considered basic functionality for a serious video camera, such as 24p video. Then Vincent Laforet released his short film Reverie, and suddenly every budding filmmaker on the planet had to have one.

The 5D II was quickly adopted by everyone from indie filmmakers hungry for its big sensor cinematic look to video professionals looking for high production value, all despite the fact that the camera had terrible ergonomics for shooting video. The intense interest in the 5D II as a video camera caught Canon off guard a bit, but it established that a stills camera could create great video content, and that a single tool had the potential to satisfy the needs of both users.

The Canon EOS 5D Mark II wasn't the first video-enabled DSLR, but it was the camera that put video on the map for many still photographers.

Another big milestone on the march to convergence was the advent of mirrorless cameras, most notably the GH series from Panasonic. Beginning with the Lumix GH1 and continuing through to the current Lumix GH4, Panasonic embraced the mirrorless format and the benefits it provided to filmmakers such as built-in electronic viewfinders and the ability to attach virtually any lens ever made to its bodies. Other manufacturers followed this successful formula with mirrorless cameras such as the Sony a7S and Samsung NX1. Ultimately, mirrorless proved that you didn’t need a DSLR to produce both high quality stills and video. The emergence of accessories like the excellent Atomos Shogun just expand their abilities even further.

The Panasonic Lumix GH1 quickly became a favorite among videographers thanks to its excellent video and mirrorless body that included an electronic viewfinder, as well as the ability to attach virtually any lens ever made via adapters.

However, despite the fact that all these cameras had revolutionary video capabilities, they were all basically built around an SLR form factor optimized for still photography.

Enter the XC10

To a certain extent, the XC10 is our first glimpse at what we might see as the influence of Cinema EOS finds its way into Canon’s still imaging products, with features squarely aimed at satisfying both videographers and still photographers in a single body. In fact, the impression one gets is of a camera that could be taken into the field and used equally well for either still photos or video capture and that would provide a reasonably good experience for either.

The camera looks a bit like a baby C100 and includes a video friendly rotating handle and a detachable rear viewfinder for eye level use. Where still cameras with video have historically been a compromise in ergonomics the XC10 is clearly designed with video ergonomics in mind, though the shape should lend itself equally well to stills photography as well.

The Canon XC10 aims to deliver a good ergonomic experience whether you're shooting still images or video.

Under the hood a 1-inch sensor promises to deliver 12 stops of dynamic range in both still and video modes while capturing either 12MP still images or video up to 4K (UHD) resolution. 12MP isn’t exactly a headline number these days, but it’s a perfectly adequate resolution for many purposes, particularly the ones Canon is targeting the XC10 at such as electronic news gathering (ENG). In addition to the 12MP image capture the XC10 is compatible with EOS accessories such as Speedlite flash units and remote controllers. It also includes Wi-Fi to get content off the device and into users’ hands quickly (another valuable component for multimedia professionals).

The video side of the camera comes along with some impressive specs: 4:2:2 8-bit color at bit rates up to 305Mbps in 4K (50Mbps in 1080). It also includes a built in ND filter (a critically important feature for achieving proper shutter speed) as well as Canon Log gamma, Wide DR, and EOS Standard picture modes for flexibility in post production and matching color with Cinema EOS cameras. It also includes 5-axis image stabilization, though IS only works up to 1080 resolution.

Who’s it for?

If you're one of those people leaving comments along the lines of 'too expensive!' and 'Canon has lost its way' then rest assured - this product isn't for you. It’s not surprising that Canon is specifically highlighting the XC10’s utility to news agencies and multimedia journalists (a description which covers a surprisingly large swath of media these days). After all, these are people and organizations that have regular need to produce multimedia content, often quickly and with a minimum of gear. Think of a reporter who must rush to the scene of a news story and take still photos for a story on a web site, capture video interviews with eyewitnesses, and live tweet images — all while on the move and on a deadline.

Even DPReview would benefit from this type of camera. When we attend a trade show to bring you industry news we need to gather still images for news stories as well as video content such as interviews and product demos. A camera that does both of these well in a compact package would be very attractive to us.

Another potential use for the XC10 is high quality drone videography. At less than 5 inches in every dimension the camera is sized right to be mounted on medium to large drones. It’s a bit heavy at just over two pounds, but that includes a 10X zoom lens. Assuming the quality is there, this lightweight, high spec combination could prove tremendously useful for commercial aerial photography.

At less than 5 inches on a side the XC10 could be attractive to multimedia professionals who need a lot of tools in a small, lightweight package. It also has potential for applications such as aerial drone photography.

Ultimately, the XC10 could prove to be a compelling tool for anyone who needs to create both still and video content from a single device, be it for artistic, business, or other reasons. However, it may not be the tool many enthusiast photographers are looking for. It only has a 1-inch sensor so it likely won’t be a replacement for a camera with a full frame or APS-C chip, but it’s versatility may prove very effective for certain applications.

To see the future, we need only look at the present.

If the old adage of “what costs $50,000 today will cost $5,000 in a few years” is true, we don’t have to be too imaginative to see where technology is taking us because it already exists. Although it may not be on the radar of many still photographers, within the professional motion picture industry a high degree of technical convergence between stills and video already exists, albeit at a relatively high cost.

For example, the RED Epic Dragon is a professional cinema camera whose price starts at around $25,000 and goes up from there. Potentially way up, depending on what accessories are attached to it. This isn’t the type of camera you’re going to throw in your pack for hike, but what’s interesting to look at is the technology convergence going on inside.

The RED Epic Dragon can capture 6K video at 100 frames per second in raw format. Technology from cameras like this will eventually find its way to prosumer and professional photography equipment.

The Epic Dragon can capture 6K video at up to 100 frames per second with 16+ stops of dynamic range. Not only that, but RED cameras capture raw video. The result is that every frame to come out of the camera is a 19MP raw image file, similar to a raw file from a DSLR.

It may be a few years before we see this level of performance find its way into prosumer and professional photography equipment, but the day will arrive. It’s not a matter of 'if', it’s a matter of 'when'.

What does this mean for photography?

Let’s do a thought exercise. Close your eyes and imagine a future where a camera like Epic Dragon will fit in your hand. Then ask yourself a few questions:

Think of the type of photography you do. Would it change the way you shoot?

Would it affect your creative choices?

What things could you do that you can’t do today?

If we buy into the idea that photography is about the 'Decisive Moment', what are the implications when we gain the ability to capture all the moments in the scene? It’s an interesting question we may all get to explore some day.

The XC10 is no Epic Dragon, but it's still early days for convergence cameras. What the XC10 can do is capture 4K video, each frame of which will give you an 8MP image, and as we’ve seen from other cameras a frame from a properly exposed 4K video stream can produce an impressive image perfectly suitable for many purposes. Of course, you can also attach a Speedlite flash to the top and go take stills with with it. It promises to be adept at either application, and that's the whole point.

Final Thoughts

Although there has been a lot of movement towards convergence, with consumer stills cameras gaining increasingly advanced video features, this shouldn't be taken to mean that there's no difference between professional stills and professional video equipment. It's easy, from a photographic perspective, to look at the basic specs of the XC10 and compare it to video-capable consumer cameras such as the Panasonic FZ1000 and Sony RX10. Yes, they all have long zooms and 1"-type sensors, but that doesn't mean they can be substituted for one another.

Although the basic components may look similar, the devil is in the detail of the implementation. Even without giving consideration to the handling and form-factors of the two products, it's important to recognize the gulf that exists between being able to shoot 4K and being able to shoot high-end 4K. The FZ1000, for instance, can capture UHD 4K but does so at bitrates of up to 100Mbps, and records 4:2:0 color (meaning only two pieces of color information per 8-pixel block). By comparison, the XC10 shoots 4:2:2 data in the more pro-orientated XF-AVC format at bitrates of 205 or 305Mbps. This may seem like a small difference, but it could well be the difference between broadcasters accepting your footage and rejecting it.

Canon XC10

Panasonic FZ1000

Sony RX10

4K video

XF-AVC Intra

305MBps

MP4

100MBPS

-

HD Video

XF-AVC Long GOP

50Mbps

AVCHD

28Mbps

XAVC-S

50Mbps

2X oversampling for HD video

Yes

-

-

Professional picture modes

Canon Log gamma

-

-

Wi-Fi

Operate camera and transfer images from a web browser or mobile device*

Mobile device (app)

Mobile device (app)

HDMI out

Yes, 4:2:2 10-bit**

Yes

Yes

Time code

Yes

-

-

Color bars

Yes

-

-

Built-in ND filter

Yes

-

Yes

*The ability to operate the camera and review and transfer images/video through a web browser on a computer is advantageous when many images need to be transferred and processed through a downstream workflow.

**We have asked Canon to confirm this spec

We also don't yet know how durable the build-quality of the XC10 is, however given that Canon is targeting the media and ENG (electronic news gathering) markets it’s very likely that it’s built to commercial standards (it would also explain why such a small camera weighs over two pounds). That would imply that it’s intended for day-in, day-out professional use with predictable reliability throughout its duty cycle. Professional DSLRs that need to meet this threshold of durability, where professionals expect them to work every day without fail, don’t fall far from the same price point. Would an FZ1000 last long in the hands of a working professional putting it through rugged use every day (because that's not the task it was designed for)? The FZ1000 is a camera you might pick up at Best-Buy; it’s unlikely you’ll find professional media organizations shopping for cameras there.

Looking at it from a photographer's perspective, Canon's XA20 camcorder's specifications sound like they should be matched by a mass-market superzoom. A tiny 1/2.8"-type sensor, 27-576mm equivalent zoom and 1080 output doesn't sound particularly impressive, yet the XA20 has an MSRP of $2,500 and sells for around $2,000. The XC10 is aimed at a similar group of run-and gun buyers (though offers a different balance of features: a larger sensor but no XLR audio connectors), and in that context the price isn’t out of line. Also, it’s worth noting that the XC10 is designed to match the look of Cinema EOS cameras, potentially offering a high build quality, yet lower cost alternative to something like a C100 or C300 but whose footage could be intercut with those cameras.

The XC10 represents an important step on the path to convergence between the still and video imaging worlds, though it’s important to recognize that it’s an early step. Canon tends to be very deliberate in its product development and has smartly aimed this camera at a category of users (such as media) for whom the combination of features, specs, and physical size make a lot of sense. It may not be the camera that enthusiast stills photographers are looking for, but it might be the best example yet of a 'convergence' product that facilitates both still photography and video with equal emphasis on both.

So in summary: we’re very much looking forward to getting our hands on one and giving you a full report of how it works...

Comments

My DP and I ran the XC10 through the gamut on a music video shoot, including dropping onto a tile floor off the tripod.

I understand that DSLR's don't get this camera, and they want interchangeable lenses. This is not a DSLR replacement! If I was in news again I would want to go into the field with.

XC10 Pros

The 4K is stunning and the 2K was surprisingly impressive! Audio was impressively clean too. Canon Log made for quick grading work.

We had no problem with the weight.

We thought the lens was of sufficient quality for 90 % of most work. Running the camera in Tv mode was superb.

500 ISO was sufficient. We shot at night using 2 x 312 LED's which had to be silked and turned all the way down 18 feet way.

Cons.

Its agreed Canon needs to upgrade firmware. Why features which work superbly in 2K mode were short-changed in 4K. For instance you cannot record 2K on the CFast card, or use the 5 axis stabilizer in 4K. I also need need separate shutter and ISO buttons.

Been using this for 2 weeks now and i won't go into the minus's as theres lots of that on-line.

But as an 'image stabilized 4K 305mb/sec great in low light camera' its great. Great picture, hard to use in manual mode, but as a gun and run its pretty amazing handheld even in very low light. Even in full auto.

Theres lots of 'gotchas' but i think if Canon could ever do a firmware update to get the FPS to 60@ 4K ( a lot to ask i know) it WILL be the next '5D' revolution. I continue to not understand why Canon doesn't get that higher frame rates as so important.

One thing this camera has taught me is the SSD drive is DOA a year from now. cFast 2.0 and beyond is the future of high speed, high capacity storage.

1. Drop the price down to the proper consumer level - say $1200. It's not a professional camera and is certainly not worth $2500, but it's probably worth half that to a beginner shooting pictures of baby's first steps or the spinning tea cups at Disneyland. No journalist would use such a simplistic camera, and its stills mode is crippled by the lack of RAW shooting.

2. Simplify it even more by offering a real, one button 'auto' mode that does everything for the shooter. Consumers expect ease of use.

and finally

3. Start offering this product at Costco, Walmart and Target. They are exceptional at marketing consumer level cameras.

It rotates backward as well. The composite grip position picture shows it in 5 positions; 2 positions forward and two backward from vertical, which is the red shutter release button at about 2:00 if you look at the main picture.

Don't know, it's kinda hard for me to justify $2,500 for a camera with a fixed lens. The FZ1000 costs 1/3 and it offers 80% of the XC10's capabilities. Looks like a much better deal. Anyhow, I much prefer my NX1.

Quite some people are comparing this to USRA mini. But they are indeed very different equipment for very different applications.

In terms of video production, XC10, as small TOTAL package one-stop solution, aims squarely at the absolute running&gunning situations.

Think of the reporters riding in campaign buses, the one-man band journalists lurking in shaken apartment in Yemen. These people need the tool that can be tossed in the bag of laptop, immarsat / cell phones, pens and notebooks. And most importantly the workflow must be as light as the camera, while the output video is broadcast grade after minor editing on a Macbook.

In above situations, the URSA mini would be a barrier to deliver. The barrier comes from "too capable" and too heavy a work flow - both the weight the camera+lenses and the time and resource needed to properly edit the raw/ProRes footage.

For my limited experience, I never touched RAW video as I just don't have time to finish the intended work with it.

Yes of course. No wonder the FZ1000 is called the poor man's GH4. They are very similar. Touch screen, sensor size and headphone jack are probably the main difference. But I think the key is the GH4 body. Heck even GH4 with a 24-105 2.8 fixed lens would be great. Or a GH4 with the LX100 lens.

I think Canon has one thing right with the XC10, there are many pro situations that are not filmmaking. In those cases a fixed lens simplifies set up.

I imagine they made EF mount prototypes of this first as a platform for determining what the characteristics of the fixed lens should be. It does make sense for them to choose to tightly control the optics in the first iteration of a camera that is a bit of a risky bet, and to make a lens designed specifically for the 1" sensor. If it does work out, I'm sure we'll see an EF version within a year or two, but under a different name because "X" models are all fixed-lens. C10 maybe?

Re: "The decisive moment." Still photography has not been about "the decisive moment" since the introduction of motor drives on film cameras. The XC10 and the Epic Dragon are only the continuation of that process, as well as any multi-shot camera. To talk about the capabilities of the Epic Dragon as being a threat to a foundational assumption about still photography is to ignore changes that started well over 30 years ago. The "decisive moment" was about choosing your moment BEFORE you took the picture: Now the moment is chosen after multiple, soon maybe hundreds, of moments are examined after the fact. "Decisive moment" used for anything but a single shot, analogue or digital, is a misnomer.

The "decisive moment" is still the same. It's just that the way we go about capturing it has changed. Back in the film and pre-motor-drive days, capturing the decisive moment was damn near miraculous, especially if there was a lot of action. Now, you can anticipate the action, set up the shot, shoot a bunch of frames and then pick the best one—without wasting any film. The decisive moment is still there.

- no interchangeable lenses, and the fixed lens it has is slow;- no RAW capture capability for stills, only 8-bit JPEG;- consumer-grade 4K, 4:2:0 colour space for a pro-level price;- price is too high relative to competing cameras.

I could live with the fixed lens if it was a little speedier. I would seriously consider getting the camera if it had RAW stills capability (can't understand why Canon would omit this, as it would be a simple firmware fix), and the price were lower. If the fixes I desire were implemented, then the XC10 would be the almost-perfect replacement/companion to my existing T2i DSLR.

I can get pretty close to all the features the XC10 is offering, plus a faster f2.8 ~ 4.0, 25-400mm lens and a 1" sensor, plus 4K, *and* RAW capture in the Panasonic FZ1000, which is currently selling for a little under a third of the proposed price for the XC10.

No, XC10 is definitely pro quality recording, which accounts for some of the price bump. Colour is 4.2.2 at all resolutions, including UHD. 1080p is broadcast-acceptable 50Mbps (FZ1000 is 28 or maybe 35). 4K is 305Mbps on the XC10, only 100Mbps on the FZ1000. Yes, if you just need consumer-quality 4K or 1080 the FZ1000 will deliver that at a lower price, but if you need broadcast quality video the XC10 records that in-camera.

Actually I came to this conclusion in 2007 When I started using HD cameras to frame grab "the moment " at 30 FPS and mix those images touched up thru After Effects with DSLR images. SO the idea of catching a still from the stream is nothing new. After all this is why it is called Motion Pictures , isn't it? Models loved it because they could move naturally and not have to freeze ....

If the CW 5D4c rumor is correct and they deliver with it fully, Canon be back in the video game with that option though. The XC10 pricing/specs and 1DC and C300II do make one worried they won't quite totally deliver with the 5D4c, but if they do, that at least could bring them back in the game.

You refer to those like yourself who would rather pay $2500 for a 1" sensor, 30p 4k, slow fixed lens than $3000 for an APS-C sensor, 4k 60p, 150fps HD RAW and an EF mount and pro features and connectors, just because the former has the Canon name badge on it?

I probably should not have gone there and lowered myself to the same level as your whole gang you toss the personal insults non-stop for years, but I guess I did. Sorry.

I think a lot of the negativity on this site would go away if posters developed an understanding and showed respect for the fact that different photographers/videographers have different needs so the choice of equipment will vary. People don't seem to have this problem in other areas of life. Nobody tells a building contractor that he/she should have bought a sports car rather than a truck because the car goes faster when the builder really needs to carry lumber. The XC10 seems to implement the idea of an integrated, ergonomic, small camera equally capable of still and video work better than other products in the market. There is lots of room for improvement and for other companies to introduce competitive products in the hybrid/convergence sector.

For only 20% more money the new BM camcorder will deliver 4k 60p at 12 stops with fully decked usability features and pro connectors (things the Canon fanboys claim are so expensive they cost $20,000 to produce....) and 150fps 1080P RAW!

Oh and it will also take all of your Canon lenses!

Oh and it will also use an APS-C sized sensor instead of a 1" sensor!

So for only 20% more money it beats the XC10 on every single spec, often by miles, other than for it being a bit bulkier (it's not like the XC10 is GoPro portable though).

This is why some of us have been trying to wake Canon up and push them forward, not because we hate them, but because we have a sense of what is going on and what could be done. Acting all fanboy does not do any favors for any Canon user! It just lets Canon sit back and be lazy.

BM URSA mini:$29994k 60p150fps HDhas a full-sized APS-C sensortakes Canon EF lenseslooks to have more pro connectors and features

(although it is true that you do need to add another $300 or so to the URSA price to give it a lens since it comes with no lens, so for someone with no Canon gear the entry price is more than 20% higher, for someone already with Canon lenses though....)(and yes the URSA is a bit bulkier and EF lens IS might not be quite as good for video IS as what will be in the XC10 perhaps for the non-tripod, hand-held without aid shots)

The Blackmagic on paper is an absolute bargain even if you do have to add a lens. Not only does it beat the Canon, it beats a lot of other dedicated video cameras as well from all makers.I suspect the Ursa requires a lot more computing power to deal with its data.That could add to the cost.

I agree. however, kind of pointless to assess things that don't yet exist in the market. Reminds me of the booing and hissing at the C100 II release. On paper it's nothing exciting, but in your hands and on the screen, it's a piece of art. I've only used the original BM, but based on that, I'd classify it as garbage for professional use. Not because of specs -- but because of the actual experience I had in using it and hating it.

Don't forget that you need to add a monitor to the URSA mini. The lovely viewfinder they provide for the camera will bring the cost up to $4,500. The XC10 is a much more compact package at 45% lower cost if you don't really need the higher frame rate, resolution, DR, and interchangeable lenses, which as noted will add yet more cost if you don't already own them. If you don't need those extras, the XC10 is a bargain.

One thing I've accepted as gospel is that form factor/ergonomics/ease of use -- these are the things that matter most because they directly and immediately affect the quality of your work -- unless there is something in the technology that is clearly blocking you from delivering a great product. Thing is, if you have technology in your hardware, that is not an attribute that will ever set you apart because that tech is available to everyone.

Or what about the new BM from today? Not a peep and yet this baby does 4k at 60p, 1080P RAW at 150fps!, takes Canon EF lenses, has a full-sized APS-C sensor, pro connectors and usability features and costs only 20% more than this XC10!

Nothing like this article where they said it is a big thing even when there are other cameras available that almost do the same at much much lower price, oh they even posted this without even testing this camera itself.

photo ans videography is about what lenses can show -a camera without mount and a 10x zoom is nice - but not a great future camera.The sharpness in moving subjects must be much higher for a great picture than for 4K video - so the worlds for best quality will keep separated.

We can wait with the discussion until 8K is ready and then photos will come from 80 MP cameras...

For young videographer who study the basics, most of the equipment used are Canon 5D mk3 cameras and lenses. The cost of such equipment is more expensive than the XC-10. The future of the XC-10 will tell us if this equipment is good for videography students. If the XC-10 works well, It could be that it becomes the videography standard for students, as the 5D was.

@OP, That tells me that none of these students really did examined the market of tools. Instead it is a 'me-too' decision.

I think a review site (check the URL ...) should do more. A big reason for its sheer existence is that it should be deliver enlightenment. - Helping customers to find gems outside the normal me-too buys we see and do.

Stating it is great because the logo is the right one, simply doesn't cut it.Without this site everyone and their mothers would still be able to find Canon and Nikon offers. So there is no need for this site to accomplish that.

Most of the critics here are about the market perspective and the competitive analysis.Don't you think those students would benefit if they knew more about the different offers out there and was able to pick a tool that fitted their needs.

Nobody knows who the target audience actually is. Is the new canon 'uncertainty principle'. The simple act of reading the XC10 specs and looking at the price sticker cuts you out from the 'target audience'. You should simply buy it put in in a drawer somewhere and forget about it.

Still waiting for some of the XC10 'target audience' to raise up and defend this thing. My guess the media photojournalism field has done well until now and continue to do so without needlessly shelling out a good hunk of a month's pay for this contraption. Remember a vast majority of these guys are freelancers operating on very narrow profit margin. Whatever is cheap and does the job wins. Video quality seems far from being the deal breaker from any equipment coming out these days.Anyways, whatever this thing can do now the next iteration of the iphone or the galaxy will do more conveniently and cheaply.

As with other cameras, announcing anything other than the machine and its complete listed specifications prior to a complete review (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more....there are these days fewer and fewer of these, nudge, nudge)

really is asking for trouble. Involving staff in replying in defence of a machine they are utterly ignorant of is extremely rash.

Everybody gets upset, and then the cranks, trolls and troublemakers all join in, instead of writing out 1000 times, "I must not pretend to know things I am ignorant about".

There are an awful lot of just plain bad, timewasting people on this site, and I would suggest Dpreview trawl through all of the posts and permanently block those they deem enter into this category forthwith, me included , if they feel like it.

Canon spec says 27.3 - 273 mm in video mode. Canon uses the term "4K" but the specs are for UHD (3840 by 2160). Stills are 4000 by 3000 so the video is 160 pixels narrower than the still. The Canon UK web site has the specs for the 25/50 fps (PAL) version.

BTW I've been a proponent of Nikon's 1 series since it came out, because a smaller sensor is so much better for photojournalism. They have a larger depth-of-field.

Video editors complain all the time about the crappy full-frame sensors that amateur videographers use, because NOTHING is in focus. The shallow depth-of-field for full-frame cameras are HORRIBLE. There's also a lot of shakiness and other problems with these full-frame dSLRs for video. You can ALWAYS tell when a full-frame dSLR is used, because they're always much worse than real video cameras that have much smaller sensors.

I commission photographers and videographers, for both art and news. A good way to get rejected by me is by telling me you shoot with video with a full-frame dSLR. Such amateurs.

Again, I can't emphasize enough: if you're shooting video, USE A SMALLER SENSOR. Your videos will be much better.

There's a reason professional video cameras don't use full-frame sensors.

35mm format has filmed almost all movies up until maybe 2005. It's a very proven format. I don't think most people would agree that a smaller sensor is the 'wave of the future'. I'd love to see this camera in 35mm format, still 12MP and the ability to switch lenses.

What's insane these days is that if you went to a youtube/vimeo/dpreview forum and asked people to name their favorite professional camcorder, how many would say XF305, EX1R or PMW300? I get the feeling most younger video producers (sorry, I guess we have to call them digital filmmakers now) wouldn't even have knowledge or experience with these tools.

every single photojournalist in the world from the start of 35mm photography...uhhh in the 1920's? I think. Up until about 2002 used 35mm format. You ask why would anyone use that? lol well everyone has and most still do as all pro SLRs are 35mm!!!

Remember an f1.4 lens on a canon cropped sensor 1.6x gathers the same amount of light as an f2.24 lens on a 35mm sensor. Thus you just CAN'T get the same light gathering from a smaller sensor. Impossible. In photojournalism, you often can't use flash. Having way more light pushed to your sensor allows for much better shutter speeds.

Felix Man and especially Umbo used PLaubel Makinas and even earlier machines with fast film and lenses to record life in gaslit streets and rooms in the late 20s and 30s.

I used to use an Aldis Butcher 1/4 plate camera I found as a student. Dating from the 30s and UK made including the lens (f4.5) it was an excellent press and portrait machine with a top focal plane shutter speed of 1000th/sec. But the later Plaubels,. Speed Graphics and MPPs were very much more sophisticated.

A Speed Graphic used today with Tri-X film or any fast film will still produce better results than a DSLR at 400iso and above....

dwill23: "Having way more light pushed to your sensor allows for much better shutter speeds". Actually, for a given depth of field, you'll get a higher shutter speed with a smaller format, without any need to push the sensitivity (though larger formats theoretically are more forgiving at that pushing, they still start off with a significant disadvantage).

Note, too, that journalists used 35mm film because of it's advantages over larger formats. There were no practical formats that were smaller over most of that time!

About a year from now, DPR should try to get Canon to do an interview about the acceptance of this camera in the marketplace. Who is buying it and how is it being used? I appreciate that companies don't like to discuss product performance in the marketplace but if the questions are qualitative rather than quantitative then it might be possible.

This thread should win some kind of prize for the sheer number of drooling, hate-filled trolls that have emerged from their Mom's basement to pour vitriol on a product that they'll never own, never mind use in any meaningful way.

I think not agreeing with you doesn't mean you are troll because if that were true I'd be a Troll because I don't agree with you.

This camera is a very poor response to the current market - there are better and cheaper options that have been out for months, over a year in some cases. We want something better from Canon. If this were a cheap camera say sub 800 dollars inc memory card then fine - just another me too camera but fine. But it is not. It's expensive, late to the party and with little anyone will see as a unique benefit. IMO

The Panasonic GH4 is a much more desirable camera for both stills and video. Put a 14-140mm on it (28-280mm equivalent) and you've got a similar focal range, similar aperture, but the GH4 has twice the sensor size for better ISO performance and DOF control. And it's $500 cheaper.

Not that I would waste the GH4 on such a lens though with all the lovely fast glass that's available in M43. And that's the real problem for Canon - how many people are going to drop $2500 down on a camera to be stuck with a slow zoom on a 1" sensor?

Or maybe the 'drooling trolls' actually know what is up and how fast the market is moving and would rather see Canon be a player and than get by milking the fanboys company?

Look what just came out today from the competition:

XC10:$24994k 30P1" sensorslow, fixed lens

BM URSA mini:$29994k 60p150fps HDhas a full-sized APS-C sensortakes Canon EF lenseslooks to have more pro connectors and features

(although it is true that you do need to add another $300 or so to the URSA price to give it a lens since it comes with no lens, so for someone with no Canon gear the entry price is more than 20% higher, for someone already with Canon lenses though....)

While I am pleased to see this product I could not made myself alight t o a solution as a convergence solution. That though is not something to be blamed on Canon but its a whole yo this market. Basically thr issue is thst none of these wheyher its yheRED or just the consumer Sony RX, they just fail to deliver the still quality as opposed to like of like .

picture this. back in old days I can tske a sinhle frsme of the film syock and ecpect like of like still.wuslity ss if I shoot that same frame ss still. that's not so with todaus

From the article above: "It’s not surprising that Canon is specifically highlighting the XC10’s utility to news agencies and multimedia journalists (a description which covers a surprisingly large swath of media these days). After all, these are people and organizations that have regular need to produce multimedia content, often quickly and with a minimum of gear."That's why this camera is debuting at NAB Shows.

Yes, I read that, I still don't really feel like that gives me a clear idea of who exactly would be using this or why it's a big deal. It isn't weather sealed or even resistant as evidenced by the great big fan intakes, so it's clearly not ideal for field work. It has a small sensor and a slow lens without stabilised 4k, so it doesn't seem ideal for poorly lit indoor use either. It's on the heavy side for drone work and has no power zoom. It doesn't have XLR and its form factor doesn't make much sense for studio use. It's very expensive, requires very expensive memory cards and 4:2:2 4k is unnecessary for most applications. What multimedia services are even broadcasting 4k handheld camcorder footage?

People that like the product and agree with the editorial are the target audience. They are also generally not commenting because they are working professionals and generally an order of magnitude better than anyone else. This is the revolutionary convergence product that they will use to go back to the 1960s via time travel and get both stills and conclusive video of the Kennedy assassination.

People that don't like the product and don't agree with the article should consider the possibility that they are unemployed for good reason, clueless, and a troll. Not only are they not the target audience, but they really aren't good videographers either.

Truth be told, I can use a camera that's well built, can capture video and stills, will withstand a reasonable amount of humidity in the atmosphere, has excellent high ISO performance, will integrate into a WiFi network for file transfers, and will operate from a plugged-in power supply.

In fact I could use two. They'd be in fixed installations and operate at temps up to 35C and I'd use them to track moving objects, working with maybe as low as 100 lux.

I get the impression I'm not the target audience here either though. If it's not the tech, it's certainly the price.

The article itself is a success and in fact it may serve the site better to post articles like this rather than articles that seem more logical to the more vocal readers. Clicks are clicks and they must translate to funding at some point; otherwise, nobody would care about clicks.

I suspect even the camera will be a success, for the reasons I stated earlier: I don't think sales will go to individuals but rather to multi-unit orders (for fixed installations and/or field work among employees, for example) and Canon is a "safe" buy.

Since Canon is "safe" the camera will sell.

The innovations listed in the article were generally true innovations; however, they've generally been introduced elsewhere previously, in other cameras or devices -- including by... Canon.

Do I hate Canon or any other camera maker? No.

Is the site is independent? No. We're talking about legal relationships among entities. A owns B.

after giving it more thought, i think i might become part of the target audience *because* this camera seems to be getting it right. i'll probably wait for the mk II or III, but a single cheap piece of equipment is very tempting. yes, i said cheap. and i mean it. because at 2500 bucks this camera can be earning money after a few weeks or months. and since it is doing both video and stills, it is earning that money even earlier. gosh, time to take a look at video editing software.

The emporer's new clothes Barney. No pros are going to buy that thing!! Its a joke. It really is a joke. We use stuff with fast lenses, weatherproof, strong with viewfunders-all necessary. You are trying to create a custom base as Canon have really messed up this time.write out 1000 times "I must not push products on my review site, especially those I have not ever used and which are not yet released, Amen"

You have just presented a hybrid cam. And went on to tell everybody who was shooting stills/video for many years now (very often with the one (hybrid) camera) that they are not the target audience for the camera. And you keep insisting on that. And people get angry, because you basically reject years of their work.

Throwing in "not our core audience" is also a "nice" touch, since the hybrid users just started warming up to the DPR's improved reviews of the video.

Do you see now the problem with what you say?

Drop "convergence" - call it like everybody else "hybrid".

Drop "multimedia pros" - people are doing it for years now and nobody calls it that.

Do not throw frivolously at people "not target audience" - because many Pana GH*/AF* and Sony A*/FS*/AX* users who showed up here actually are the target audience. Because they already do mixed video/stills shooting for many years now.

This whole conversation has long outrun its course, at this point. You can dig into everything I post and work to find the least charitable interpretation if you wish, but I'm not going to keep on getting sucked back in. There doesn't seem much point. My comments about our audience are based on research and should not be over-interpreted.

One simple question to Dpreview. With hindsight at your disposal would you still have produced this opinion piece or would you just have left it at the press release and moved on? Basically, was it worth the effort to produce this article in your opinion?

Nothing about the reaction to this article from some of our audience suggests to me that we shouldn't have posted this opinion piece.

Seems like two things happened:

1: An number of people who aren't the target audience but who somehow got hold of the idea that they are, were confused and disappointed by a product that isn't actually aimed at them.

2: Another set of people (there's considerable overlap between the two groups) either missed or didn't think through the meaning of the first word in the headline, which is "Opinion".

And then DPR-haters and Canon-bashers (again, there's some overlap) just started commenting on comments without reading the article. But that always happens, and it's to be expected.

As I've stated in a few other places, this is an opinion piece, written by someone who is perfectly qualified to have one. I stand by it - thanks to all of those who actually read it - including the headline - before commenting :)

However I don't agree that your analysis of two groups 1 and 2 is correct.

The article said "Ultimately, the XC10 could prove to be a compelling tool for anyone who needs to create both still and video content from a single device, be it for artistic, business, or other reasons".

This opinion that seems so odd in view of the vast price of the camera and cards, and some of its less than stellar specs, particularly for stills. It just does not seem the big deal claimed by the article, and unsurprisingly many people have stated alternatives to the 'opinion'.

I'm a pro and I love Dpreview, so you can exclude me from your imaginary list. As a pro, I would prefer something better. Also, the idea that the target audience is going to agree on gear is untenable--the audience is diverse and tech savvy.

The issue I have with this article is that Dpreview spent so much time explaining and defending this this camera. There are so many other cameras that never get discussed even though they would be more appealing to the Dpreview audience.

I am guessing that the GoPro cameras would be more appealing to the Dpreview audience than this camera was.

Simply put. ENG users are an insignificant portion of the dpreview audience. So why did Dpreview dedicate so much time and resources to this camera?

The Red cameras are great cameras for their intended audience but Dpreview never gives them more than a passing glance.

So why give this camera the time of day? Is it simply because Canon made it and Dpreview typically covers all of the cameras that even remotely resemble a still camera from Canon? They do the same for Nikon, Sony, and M4/3s so that is fine in my opinion. However, I think this camera has already garnered more attention than it deserves from Dpreview and their audience.

as the opinion says: this is the first camera that tries to get three things right: photo, video, price. and i have to agree that it seems to be successful at doing that. even the most basic enthusiast kit in any classic system - µ43, DX, FX - will cost you more.

Rely, how about GH4 + lenses, NX1 plus lenses, Panasonic FZ1000, LX100, all of them offer better quality at better or much better prices.This Canon thing is super expensive for what it offers. I bet Panasonic FZ 1000 and RX10 successor will have better specs then this at 1/3 the price. Will Dpreview make a big deal about them? Pretty sure NO. It is so obvious that they were paid by Canon to advertiser this piece of c..p!

Google Photos is adding a few pet-friendly features that will make it easier to find photos of your favorite pooch. Now, you can organize your pet photos by facial recognition, and you can even search your library by breed.

The Nikon D850 is a 45.7MP full-frame DSLR with an autofocus system lifted wholesale from the pro-sports focused D5. 4K capture, continuous shooting at 7 or 9 frames per second make it sound like the ultimate all rounder. Is it all that these specs suggest?

DxO has announced version 3.0 of the iOS app for its 'One' connected camera. It adds support for multi-camera Facebook Live broadcasting and both time-lapse still and video capture. Android users will be pleased to hear that a One for their platform is on the way, as well. Several new accessories are available, including a battery pack.

Canon has introduced the PowerShot G1 X Mark III, which borrows the 24MP APS-C sensor and Dual Pixel AF system from the company's recent mirrorless and DSLR cameras, adds a 24-72mm equiv., F2.8-5.6 lens and puts them into a lightweight body – but it'll cost you quite a bit.

It's not often that we see a genuinely interesting compact camera, and the Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III is one such beast. We've pulled out the top features of the camera and tell you why they matter – and put the Mark III up against the competition.

Canon's 28mm F2.8 IS USM may be small in size, but it's big on fun. We wrote about our experience using it as our only lens in Big Sur, California, but in case you missed out on our full gallery, take a look to see what this little lens can do.

It's not exactly a revolutionary device, but the iPhone 8 Plus does promise some evolutionary updates in the camera department. DPR contributor Jeff Carlson has been putting the 8 Plus to the test in some everyday shooting situations – take a look at how it fared.

This week in Hollywood, DJI introduced its new Zenmuse X7 camera, a Super 35 format cinema camera of its own design that can also capture 24MP still images in APS-C format. Is it time to start thinking of DJI as a camera company?

The Nikon D850 isn't the first camera to hit triple digits on DxOMark; in fact, the Pentax 645Z was listed at 101 all the way back in 2015. So why was the full review never published? DxOMark explained earlier today.